Swint v. Mueller

Background

Robert James Swint, appearing without a lawyer, filed a complaint seeking a pardon, money damages, safety, lifetime insurance, and other relief. The defendants included former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Robert S. Mueller, III; “Fallout 76”; John W. Dean, III; Hurricane Sandy; and The New York Times. The complaint also listed Crystal Marie Mayer, James Stanley Dean, and Sandra Marie Lawlor as plaintiffs, but they did not sign the complaint or submit applications to proceed without paying filing fees.

The court had previously allowed Swint to proceed without prepaying fees. The complaint contained allegations that the court described as random, irrational, and unrelated to a viable legal claim.

Screening and dismissal

Because Swint was proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That statute requires dismissal of a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. A frivolous claim is one with no arguable basis in law or fact.

The court concluded that Swint’s claims were irrational and that the facts did not remotely suggest a valid claim against the named defendants. Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, the court found that amendment would be futile. It therefore declined to grant leave to amend and dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Claims for other individuals

The court also ruled that Swint could not represent the other people listed as plaintiffs. Federal law permits a person to represent himself or herself, but a person who is not an attorney generally cannot litigate another person’s interests. Because Swint had not alleged that he was an attorney, the court dismissed any claims he asserted on behalf of the other listed individuals.

Warning and appeal ruling

The court noted that Swint had filed more than 40 self-represented civil actions and appeals in federal courts since December 2020. It warned that further duplicative or frivolous litigation in that court would result in an order barring him from filing new actions without paying fees unless he first obtained permission.

The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Swint permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The complaint itself was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).